On the Emergence of by Yoshifumi Veda, translated by Dennis Hirota

esearch on the early development of Maha­ Mahayana, lIthe great vehicle," is that it leads all Ryana Buddhism has advanced rapidly in beings to true and real enlightenment-not only recent years, and many hitherto obscure facets of certain people, but any person whatsoever; it have been brought to light. But there appears moreover, it does this unfailingly. When Maha­ to be, among Buddhist scholars, a single, common Buddhism first arose, it labeled all the pre­ understanding concerning the origins of Mahayana ceding Buddhism the "small vehicle," implying about which I have basic doubts_ Although there that such Buddhism was inferior because it lacked are variations in expression among individual this capacity. The person who walks the path of scholars, we fmd a general consensus that Maha­ Mahayana is called "bodhislzttva" (being of yana Buddhism was amovement that arose among enlightenment). The spirit of the is lay Buddhists_ Professor Ryiijo Yamada, for expressed as "benefiting others," by which one example, writes: brings all other beings across to the other shore, the world ofnirva(la, before crossing over oneself. A movement to return to the fundamental teaching arose among the laity as distinct It is said that in the path, one strives from the community of elders_ This move­ to escape from this shore of SI1~ra and attain ment labeled the sectarian Buddhism, which the other shore, and there is no vision of the had fallen into a kind of conceptual play people remaining on this shore as oneself. The through emphasis on debate and disputa­ bodhisattva, however, possesses precisely this tion, with the name "small vehicle" (I1ina­ vision; hence, he cannot cross rust to the shore yana), and its own outlook was that of lay of nirva(la, and yet neither is his "benefiting believers who were absorbed in reverence others" a form of self-sacrifice for the sake of for the founder (Sakyamuni). This was a others. Mahayana transcends the dualism in which matter of returning to the realization of self and other are separate. It delves to the root­ the law of interdependence_ The term in which both self-benefit (attaining "emptiness" (Siinyatiij came to represent nirvi(la) and benefiting others (bringing all the fundamental concept of the new move­ sentient beings to nirvii(la) are established together ment_ Most scholars have taken this per­ as one and identical. The bodhiSllttva does not, spective concerning the origin of Mahayana like those of the Hlnayana path, discard this shore Buddhism. (emphasis added; Daijo bukkyo and pass on to the other; rather, he brings all seiritsuron josetsu) people of this shore to the other. According to the religious philosopher Keiji Nishitani: As Yamada states here, most scholars, with minor variations, have accepted this understanding of [The bodhiSllttva I stands in the position of the origins of Mahayana. a ferryman who passes back and forth between this shore and the other. This is a The emphasis on laity is, in one sense, under­ stance founded on going and returning standable. The distinguishing characteristic of between shores. Such a stance is, among

3 the world religions, a highly unique one At present the origins of Mahayana Buddhism are found only in Mahayana Buddhism. thought to extend back to the first century B.C. The Mahayana profess to be the teachings The attitude of the bodhisattva is expressed in of the Buddha, but they appear in large numbers the phrase, "Sa'11sQra is itself nirviI)a." That is, one after another over a lengthy period extending the mundane world is itself the realm of perfect to the seventh century A.D. Until long after wisdom. Sakyamuni's death, then, it was possible for siitras to appear as the Buddha's teaching. Moreover, The essential spirit of Mahayana is manifested not only the body ofMahiiyana siitras as a whole, in concern for a Buddhist path for the laity; but even individual siitras often appear to have hence the prevalence of the supposition that it been formed by gradual accretion and expansion. originated among the laity itself. The fundamental Such a process in the formation of a sacred canon position of Mahayana, however, should not be is surely unique in the history of religions. It is understood as one of lay religion. It does not as though the Bible or the Qur'an were to appear stand on a dualistic opposition of monk and lay in numerous different versions in quick succession. and establish itself on one side; rather, it trans­ cends such dualism and attaches no significance The IDnayana canon represents the teaching to the distinction of monk and lay. This position of Sakyamuni Buddha as formulated from mem­ arises naturally from the fundamental Mahayana ory after his death by his disciples; it has, as the stance expressed "Sa1(lsara is itself nirvil}.a." This Buddha's teaching, been haoded down to the nondifferentiation of lay and monk in Mahayana present, and there is nothing in it that stems from thought is seen in such Indian Mahayana scriptures a later date. The Mahayana scriptures, however, as the V'UTIIJlakTrti·siitra, and its most thorough· did not appear until hundreds of years after going expression is found in the Buddhism of Sa:kyamuni's demise, and even from the perspec­ Honen and . tive of content, they differ completely from the IDoayana scriptures. Since the Mahayana siitras To return to the problem of the ongm of cannot be considered the direct words of . Mahayana, the that it lies among the laity , we must assume that people other than raises several fundamental questions that touch Sakyamuni composed them, and that the authors on the very nature of Mahayana. Is it, for example, of the early forms of the Prajiiaparamitii-siitras actually possible for "believers" or U}aity" to were the earliest Mahayana Buddhists. have created a new form of Buddhism? Even if we accept that Mahayana could not have arisen Who, then, wrote the Mahayana siitras? I will from the monks, there is still some question not consider here what specific group those whether we should therefore seek its origins authors belonged to or their relations to groups among lay believers. Below, I will treat two basic that existed during Sakyamuni's lifetime. These problems: the nature of the authors of the Maha­ are possibly important problems, but my basic yana siltras, and the nature of the awareness of concern here is more generally whether the one's form of Buddhism as Mahayana. authors of the earliest Mahayana siitras (the early versions of the Prajffiipiiramitii, Lotus, Garland, WHO WROTE THE ? and other siitras) were people who could be de­ scribed as "believers" or "laity," or whether they Firm evidence for the establishment of Maha· were another kind of people. This is because the yana Buddhism is found in the appearance of issue I wish to pursue lies less in the historical Mahayana siitras; outside of such writings, we background of Mahayana than in its fundamental have no direct information concerning the origins nature. I raise the question of the nature of the (of Mahayana). It is generally accepted that the authors as a means of approaching the larger earliest such sutras are the Prajfiaparamita-sutras. question of how we are to understand the basic

4 nature of Mahayana. those concepts and ideas are Mahayana concepts differing from those of Hinayana, it is impossible Most scholarly works dealing with the problem that they be the products of Hinayana followers. of the formation of Mahayana state that the early Neither can they be the products of believers who Mahayana siitras were either written or gathered stand in the position of accepting the Buddha's and shaped by lay believers (some scholars also teaching as truth. It is precisely because the include progressive monks). In other words, in Buddha's teaching includes truths so profound contemporary scholarship, the thought of early that they cannot be fully grasped or understood Mahayana is understood as something that people that they can only be accepted and believed. Since described as believers or laity were capable of the Buddha's teaching comprises concepts and formulating. Professor T. Kimura, for example, ideas born from the experience called perfect writes: enlightenment, believers who have not yet experi· enced perfect enlightenment have no choice but They (the instigators of the Mahayana move· to accept. Here, Uprogressive monks" or "lay ment) formulated and collected, in the bodhisattllas" may be substituted for the term name of Buddha, the thought which they "believers"; in not yet having become enlightened themselves believed to be the Buddha's ones, there is no essential difference. Regardless true intent, and further, they asserted that of whether they have abandoned home life or not, it was those writings, rather than the scrip­ believers, monks or bodhisattva, have the aware· tures treasured up to then (the. Hinayana ness that they are not Buddhas, and people with siitras, precepts, and treatises), that better such an awareness would surely fmd it unthink­ expressed the Buddha's true intent. able to place themselves in the position of Buddha, whom they revere, and compose siitr3s in his It is assumed here not only that lay followers name. were capable of composing the siitcas, but further that the siiteas could be written by people who Even without stating as bluntly as Kimura that were aware that they themselves had not attained "they formulated and collected, in the narne of . Needless to say, believers and lay the Buddha, thoughts which they themselves followers-those who take in Buddha and believed to be the Buddha's true intent," if one who accept the BUddha's teaching-are not asserts that the Mahayana movement was insti· enlightened ones (BUddhas). It is certainly ques· gated by lay believers or by lay or monk bodhi· tionable whether such people could take works sattllas who had not yet attained enlightenment, they themselves had written as the Buddha's one's fundamental position does not differ signif· teaching. Further, these people, even if they icantly from Kimura's. In this case, Mahayana should be bodhisattllas who seek the way while Buddhism as the Buddha's teaching is not an maintaining home life, are seekers of enlighten­ historical fact but no more than the conjecture ment, not enlightened ones who have attained the of the believing minds of ordinary human beings. goal. It is difficult to accept that the Mahayana siitras, which are written from the perspective of The Mahayana siitras do not represent the the enlightened one (Buddha), should have been direct teaching of Sakyamuni; nevertheless, they composed by "lay believers" who lacked an awar ... were not composed from the perspective of belief ness of themselves as enlightened. in Buddha, but can only be seen as written from the perspective of having become Buddha. Who For "believers" or "laity" to be perfectly con­ then wrote the siiteas? It is not that people who vinced that certain concepts represent "the true had not yet attained Buddhahood expressed what meaning of the Buddha," it is necessary for con· they believed to be the Buddha's true meaning as cepts that can be understood and accepted as the the Buddha's own words. Rather, enlightened Buddha's meaning to exist beforehand. Since people-people who possessed the realization of

5 already having attained Buddhahood themselves­ be understood to reflect the traditional thinking expressed their own realization, their own experi­ among Indian Mahayana Buddhists. ence, in the fonn of the siitras. We frod evidence for precisely such awareness in the MalUiyiina­ SELF-AWARENESS AS THE GREAT VEHICLE siitrala",kiiTa by and 's commentary on it: Another basic problem concerning the origins of Mahayana is why the concept of the "great [In the Treatise,] "because it is established" vehicle,"which had not appeared among Buddhists (siddha) means that if a person other [than before, suddenly arose. At some point in history, Sakyamuni] realizes perfect enlightenment some Buddhists labeled all the preceding Buddhism (abhisambuddhaya) and teaches it, and that "the small vehicle" and distinguished their own [teaching] is established to be the Buddha's Buddhism as the "great vehicle." Why? What was teaching (buddha-vacanatva), the person the basis upon which the self-awareness ofMaha­ who has attained perfect enlightenment and yana Buddhists arose? As we have seen, most teaches in accord with [his enlightenment] scholars stated that the origins of Mahayana are is none other than Buddha. (Chapter I, to be found in the activity of lay followers and verse 4; Vi Hakuju, Daijo shogonkyoron progressive bhikkus who were dissatisfied with the kenkyii, p. 46). traditional order, which centered on monks and nuns. They sought to give rise to a more positive From these words we know that in the time Buddhism in which lay people as well as monks of Maitreya and Vasubandhu, even a person other could find -a Buddhism that reflected than Siikyamuni was considered to be a Buddha the original spirit of Sakyamuni. Since they ifhe actually realized and taught perfect enlighten­ themselves also held the possibility of attaining ment. In the statement, "Because it is established, H Buddhahood, they believed that they should Maitreya offers a basis for asserting that Mahayana be called ""-enlightenment-beings. Buddhism is the BUddha's teaching; it is clear, Moreover, they committed to writing, in the therefore, that Mahayana Buddhists of the day Buddha's name, the thought and concepts which possessed this kind of self-realization, and that they strongly believed to express the true intent based on this way of thinking, works composed of the Buddha, and these writings became the by people other than SakYamuni were written in Mahayana siitras. the fonn of the Buddha's teaching. For HiDayana Buddhists, a siitra is the Buddha's teaching because If such an account is true, then "great vehicle" it was preached by the Buddha (Sakyamuni), but signifies the vehicle by which aU people are saved, for Mahayana Buddhists, the reverse holds: a lay as well as monks and nuns; "great" essentially teacher is called Buddha because the content of means ubroad" or "all-embracing!' Such is not what is taught is established to be the BUddha's the explanation given in the Mahayana treatises teaching. We see, then, that the Mahayana siitras and commentaries, however. For example, it is were written by people who possessed an aware­ stated, "Foolish beings are attached to saT(lSiira; ness of having attained perfect enlightenment-of the two vehicles (Sriivakas and praryekabuddhas; being Buddhas-and that because of this their those of the Hinayana path) are attached to nir­ works took the fonn of the teaching of the vana. The bodhisattva sees no distinction between Buddha. If the earliest Mahayana siitras were sa;".a,a and nirva!)a_" Here, the nirva!)a of runa­ composed about the beginning of the Christian yana and that of Mahayana are distinguished. era, there is a space of at least several hundred Moreover: years between them and MalUiyiina-siitralaT(lkiira, but the thinking concerning what makes the In the emancipation of the two vehicles Mahayana siitras the teaching of the Buddha seen (lilnayana), there are no three bodies; in in these words ofMaitreya and Vasubandhu may the emancipation of the bodhisattva, there

6 are three bodies. Those of the two vehicles They called the new path that had made their are incapable of eliminating obstructions of attainment possible "the great vehicle." The wisdom (blind passions affecting intellect); concept that symbolizes the earliest Mahayana hence, they have no great compassion and Buddhism is prajfiiipiiramitii (ultimate wisdom or do not practice benefiting others. There­ enlightenment), of which Nagiirjuna (c. 150·250) fore they have no accommodated body or states: transformed body. (Asauga 310-390, in Mahiiyiina-sQlpgraha). It is called piiramitii (having reached the other shore- because one reaches the other Here, it is taught that the emancipation or shore of the great ocean of wisdom and goes enlightenment of HInayana and that of Mahayana to its ultimate limit. differ. While the bodhisattva realizes the no-self or nonsubstantial nature of both persons and The Prajfiiipiirrnnitii-siitra states, "Mahayana signi­ things, practicers of HInayana cannot eliminate fies turning the wheel of DIuumJz (teaching the obstructions of wisdom because they know only DIuumJz), having attained all-knowing wisdom; the no-self nature of persons. Hence, in their it lies beyond the capacities of sriivakas and emancipation, they cannot rid themselves com­ pratyekabuddhas." Nothing other than pra;fiii­ pletely of blind passions or attachments, and so piiramitii could attain the ultimate depths of wis· do not attain true enlightenment or ·body. dom. Thus, the origins of Mahayana lie not in a They do not practice benefiting others because movement among lay believers, but with people of stubborn attachments that prevent them from who had attained such full and complete enlight· truly becoming one with others. Itis not, as many enment (eradication of attachments) that they modem scholars would have it, that HInayana could criticize as immature and unfulfilled even does not emphasize salvation of others because it the enlightenment of the venerated elders of the focuses on monks and nuns who have renounced tradition. These enlightened ones expressed their home life and looks down upon those remaining own awakening in the Mahayana siitras, and the in secular life. Because HInayana practicers have content of their teachings was established to be not rid themselves completely of egocentricity, the Buddha's teaching. It is not that believers or they distinguish between themselves and others­ monks and bodhisattvas lacking awakening wrote whether monk or lay; hence, they cannot gen­ what they conceived to be the Buddha's intent in uinely benefit others. We see, then, that HInayana the Buddha's name. is considered inferior not because it takes the perspective of monks and discriminates against In the history of Indian Buddhism, the evolu· the laity, but because practicers of this way do tion from the preceding Buddhism to Mahayana not attain true nirval)a (eradication of blind pas· was not a successive and linear development, but sions) or true enlightenment. a leap of radical change. This does not necessarily refiect, as is often asserted, a shift in the socio· Thus, at some point in history, among some logical background of Mahayana from the order Buddhists, there arose the self-awareness that of Hlnayana monks and its community of sup­ their Buddhism was the great vehicle. This came porters to a social group centering onlay believers. about because they had sought enlightenment Once the new Buddhism had been established, it and performed practices according to the Buddhist is a matter of course that the social groups that tradition up to that time, but however much they supported it should differ from those that sup· strove, they could not reach ultimate enlighten­ ported the traditional community, for the found· ment. So they abandoned the tradition and, ers of the new Buddhism had taken their leave of seeking a new path, at length discovered one by the old order. The non·successional shift from which they could attain ultimate enlightenment. Hlnayana to Mahayana arose not because of dif· Thus they transcended the traditional Buddhism. ferences in the social background of supporting

7 groups; rather, it arose because, in the depths of from the perspective of in Buddha. This enlightenment, the HInayana had been trans· approach can only lead to distortion and miscon· cended. This can be grasped if we consider HOnen, ception when treating the , Shinran, Dogen and others who broke with the but it is reflected in the dominant understanding Buddhism of Mount Hiei and founded new of the origin and growth of Mahayana. The matter Buddhist paths. The new Buddhism-the newly of attainment is even more important for those opened enlightenment-naturally received the who strive not merely to understand Buddhism, support of different segments of society. Even if but to make it their own. There can be no grasp efforts were made deliberately to create a new of Buddhism if one seeks it apart from the per· teaching to save segments of society that were spective of attaining Buddhahood. not included in the traditional Buddhism, they would be bound to fail. For to truly save others, As we have seen, a large number of Mahayana one must exercise great compassion, and such siitras appeared in over a period of hundreds activity requires above all emancipation from of years. It must be said, then, that there were a egocentricity. This is possible only as the new large number of Buddhas. The Mahayana concept realization of enlightenment. of many Buddhas has its origins here. In the view of most scholars, the Mahayana tradition idealized BECOMING BUDDHA VERSUS the Buddha (Sakyamuni) and transformed him BELIEVING IN BUDDHA by imparting superhuman powers to him. Further, out of this inclination to take Buddha as an object As we have seen, the stance of the authors of of worship, numerous Buddhas and bodhisllttvas the Mahayana siitras reflects not faith, but rather were conceived; thus, the Mahayana conception of the experience of perfect enlightenment; this of many Buddhas is considered the product of attitude pervades the origins of Mahayana longing and devotion on the part of followers. Or, Buddhism and the history of its development. it is said that the concept arose out of the consid· Herein lies one of the differences of Buddhism eration that if a large number of people aspire for from such religions of faith as Christianity and Buddhahood, there is a possibility of many attain· Islam. It is undeniable that many have lived with ing it, and in addition, there is the possibility of faith in Mahayana. What is important, however, the people who have already attained Buddhahood is that Mahayana has flowed from the experience existing. I think, however, that the Mahayana and thought and acts of persons who attained conception of many Buddhas did not arise from Buddhahood, and with only those who assumed the perspective of faith in Buddha, nor from a the attitude of faith, the history of Mahayana concept of the possibility of the attainment of Buddhism could not have been established. In Buddhahood by numbers of people, but rather contemporary , people who have attained from the historical reality of people other than Buddhahood are extremely rare, and even those Sakyamuni actually having been able to attain who seriously embrace a determination to attain Buddhahood. It became possible to assert with enlightenment seem not to be numerous. The certainty that "even people other than Sakyamuni great majority take the stance of faith or belief, are able to become Buddha through this method and perhaps for this reason it appears that the (i.e., practicing prajnaparamitii)" on the basis of Buddhist community is composed only of those experience, and this formed the foundation for who have faith in the Buddha. The perspective of the conception of many Buddhas. If people who having become Buddha has lost its actuality. have realized enlightenment appear, having Although the original goal of Buddhism is to attain attained Buddhahood through methods that lead Buddhahood-and this is especially emphasized to Buddhahood for anyone who practices them, in the Mahayana tradition-the modern academic then it is possible for people everywhere to attain approach has been to abandon the perspective of Buddhahood; hence, it is said that there are attaining enlightenment and to perceive Mahayana Buddhas throughout the three times and ten

8 directions. For the Mahayana Buddhist, Buddhas Amida Buddha holds the significance of attaining are not objects of faith, they are himself-the Buddhahood, and though they speak of being true subject, not the object. Only the saved by the Buddha's or of being person who has not awakened to this views them born in the , the content in both cases objectively. In the Buddhism of Shinran also, the is becoming Buddha. Shinran's shinjin is not faith fundamental nature of Amida Buddha is not that as commonly conceived, but the awakened mind of an object of worship, but rather the true sub­ that signifies attainroent of the stage of non· jectivity functioning as self-knowledge. retrogression. In general Mahayana thought, the bodhilPlttva attains the stage ofnometrogression­ Further, it is said that people ''who acted with meaning that he will never fall back in his advance the conviction that all people could attain Buddha· to Buddhahood-when he has realized suchness hood" gave rise to Mahayana Buddhism, but or true reality; for the bodhilPlttva, this is the first merely asserting on the basis of Sakyamuni's stage of the Path of Insight, and is the basic turn­ thought the conviction that all people can attain ing point in his progress. Upon realization of Buddhahood is certainly inadequate. Mahayana shinjin, a person reaches the stage of nometro· Buddhism was first formed when the possibility gression, and his attainment of enlightenment of all people attaining Buddhahood ceased to be becomes certain. Shinran himself states that the merely a concept or idea and came to possess person of true and real shinjin is the same as actuality. There had to be more than mere activo Maitreya, the bodhilPlttva in the upper level of ity based on the conviction that all people can the tenth and fmal stage of advance to perfect attain Buddhahood; there must have been people Buddhahood. The entire history of Mahayana, other than Siikyamuni who were actually able to then, is a tradition not of people believing in attain it. What is important here is that there is Buddha, but of people becoming Buddha. It is not simply "conviction in the possibility of attain· no different in Hiinen and Shinran. ing Buddhahood," but the "actuality of having attained Buddhahood." In the Mahayana siitras, The foundation of Mahayana Buddhism­ people who had realized perfect enlightenment, enlightenment-is divided into two aspects, great based on their own experience, explained such wisdom and great compassion. In actual attain· matters as the content of perfect enlightenment, ment, these two are one and undivided, but from what one should do to attain it, and how an the perspective of human beings, in whom the enlightened person thinks and acts. Hence, the intellectual and the emotional are distinct, siitras must be understood as composed from the enlightenment has two sides. Because of this, the perspective of Buddhahood, not as born from path from unenlightenment to enlightenment is faith or idealization. In other words, they should taught to have both sides of wisdom and compas­ be seen not from the perspective of holding faith sion. "To see things as they actually are" or Uta in Buddha, but from that of attaining Buddha· know one's mind" express the path of wisdom, hood. If one takes this perspective, problems that "to be grasped by the great compassion of Amida" have been treated lightly or overlooked from the is the path of compassion. Even though wisdom attitude of faith surface as serious questions. and compassion are divided, originally they are Problems that, for the mere believer, are ignored one; hence, the path of wisdom also includes the or insufficiently understood come to be seen as aspect of compassion, and the path of compassion taught in the Mahayana siitras. How we deal with also possesses the aspect of wisdom. Whichever such problems is an important question. path one advances upon, through awakening to one's true self one becomes a true and genuine A word must be said concerning the Buddhism human person, and at the same time, one realizes of Honen and Shiman, who are said to teach the and manifests the mind in which oneself and all stance of faith in Buddha. We must bear in mind things of the universe are one both intellectually that in their Buddhism, to entrust oneself to and emotionally. That is, one becomes Buddha.

9 TRANSLATOR'S NOTE:

This translation has not benefited from a review by Professor Ueda; hopefully it will be published again in the future with correc­ tions and revisions.

10